CITY OF SIGNAL HILL SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING THE COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 10 CONDOMINIUMS AND A NEW SPECIFIC PLAN

Transcription

1 CITY OF SIGNAL HILL 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SELENA ALANIS ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING THE COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 10 CONDOMINIUMS AND A NEW SPECIFIC PLAN Summary: The applicant, High Rhodes Property Group for property owner United Anglers of Southern California, is requesting a public hearing to review plans for 10 townhome condominium units on an approximate.6-acre property at Temple Avenue. Since the last Planning Commission workshop, no substantial changes have been made to the plans. The proposal includes: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to rezone the site and create a new Specific Plan Site Plan and Design Review for the site plan and architectural designs Vesting Tentative Tract Map No creating 10 condominiums An environmental determination Mitigated Negative Declaration 05/06/16(1) Recommendations: 1) Waive further reading and adopt the following resolution, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05/06/16(1), RELATIVE TO ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 16-03, SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR THE COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

2 Page 2 2) Waive further reading and adopt the following resolution, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 16-03, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF AN APPROXIMATE.6-ACRE SITE AT 1933 TEMPLE AVENUE FROM RH, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY TO SP- 21, COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADDING CHAPTER 20.28, SP-21, COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE SIGNAL HILL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3) Waive further reading and adopt the following resolution, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 10 TOWNHOME-STYLE CONDOMINIUMS IN THE COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN ON A.6-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1933 TEMPLE AVENUE 4) Waive further reading and adopt the following resolution, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO , A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATE.6-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1933 TEMPLE AVENUE FOR 10 CONDOMINIUMS, YARDS, COMMON AREA AND A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY Strategic Plan Objectives: None. Background: Project Vicinity The site is located off of Temple Avenue between 20 th and 19 th Streets within the Hilltop Neighborhood and RH, Residential High Density, zoning district. The site is an infill parcel surrounded by condominium complexes on three sides. The surrounding developments were built in the 1980 s under the R-4 development standards which allowed for projects that are denser, taller and have reduced setback when compared to existing development standards.

3 Page 3 Hillbrook Condominiums 82 dwelling units 35 Height 3-stories 10 setback off of Temple Avenue Temple View Condominiums 16 units dwelling units 35 Height 3-stories 8 setback off of Temple Avenue Temple View Condos Hillbrook Condos Project Site & History Until recently, the site had five industrial buildings and a small shed totaling approximately 7,910 square feet of building area. The State Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) maps indicate that two abandoned oil wells were in the vicinity of the project site. In June, 2015, in response to changes in the DOGGR site plan review and abandoned well certification program, the City amended the Oil and Gas Code and established new development standards for properties with abandoned oil wells. The Code allows properties with abandoned oil wells to be developed subject to demonstrating that:

4 Page 4 Wells are surveyed to identify the location; Wells are tested to confirm they are not leaking methane; and Adequate access to service the wells is provided. On July 8, 2015, since the wells could not be located in the open areas on the site, a demolition permit was issued to demolish the southern and western warehouse and office buildings as the abandoned oil wells were thought to be under the buildings. On July 20, 2015, the two wells were located, leak tested and found not to be leaking. The applicant prepared a well access exhibit and has designed a site plan that provides access to the oil wells (wells are not being built over). Currently, two buildings with light industrial uses and a few small trees remain on the site. The non-conforming buildings will be demolished and the trees will be removed for construction of the project. View Analysis #1 On October 26, 2015, consistent with the City s View Policy, view notices were mailed to owners and residents within a 500-foot radius of the site. Story poles were installed to depict the height of the dwellings to facilitate the view analysis process. The placement and height of the story poles were certified by a licensed engineer. The applicant met with the twelve individuals that requested a view analysis and took view photos from the respective properties (photos not included with this report). Workshop #1 On December 15, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop to review preliminary plans for the proposed project. An overview of the project history, project design, parking, landscaping, grading, oil wells, view policy, outreach, and zoning ordinance amendment was provided (Attachment A). The plans reviewed at workshop #1 included: 10 townhome style condominiums o Six 3-story units (35-6 in height) o Four 2-story dwellings with the roof deck on the third floor (31-6 in height) Roof decks 12 front setback 5 rear setback 3 side setback 6-6 building separation Two elevation designs Spanish and Santa Barbara At the first workshop, nine members of the public spoke. One person spoke in support of the project and eight people had concerns. A summary of the concerns included:

5 Page 5 Opposition to the Specific Plan concept with specific concerns regarding: o Deviation from 25 height limit; o Roof decks; and o Deviation from standard setbacks Loss of property values Privacy concerns from windows, roof decks and patios Noise from roof decks and yard patios Blocked sunlight Density Construction & completion of a land survey After considering the public s testimony and review of the plans the Planning Commission directed the applicant to return to a second workshop and: 1) Meet with all interested parties to discuss general issues and revise plans accordingly; 2) Discuss view impacts with parties had that view concerns; 3) Evaluate reducing height by grading building pads down and/or reducing roof pitches; 4) Eliminate roof decks; and 5) Maximize setbacks to comply with RH setback standards View Analysis #2 After workshop #1, High Rhodes met with staff, conducted additional community outreach. Two group meetings and several one-on-one meetings were held with various Temple View residents to discuss the plans that were previously presented, collect general concerns and discuss view impacts. The applicant revised the plans and the heights of the story poles to reflect the reduced building heights of Plan 2. The story poles for the roof decks and 3-story elements were removed from Plan 1. Additional poles to help depict the rooflines were not erected. On February 17, 2016, a new view notice was sent to residents and property owners within 500-feet of the project. Staff received one new response to the view notice, Mr. Dameon Booker at 1903 Temple Avenue, Unit 325. Staff did not receive another request for a view analysis from seven of the twelve individuals who previously had a view analysis (Attachment B). Workshop #2 On March 15, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted the second public workshop to review the revised plans and revised view photos for the project (Attachment C). For workshop #2 the applicant had made the following revisions to the plans:

6 Page 6 Eliminated roof decks Reduced heights and building pad elevation o Eliminated stairwell/tower elements on the 2-story units adjacent to Temple View (Plan 1) o Created pitched roof on the 2-story units (Plan 1) o Lowered height by approximately 3 for the 3-story units (Plan 2) by reducing the ceiling heights and changing the roof pitch o Lowered finished grade for the four southern units by 1 o Sloped roof lines and placed tallest points away from property lines Reconfigured side (north and south) setbacks to comply with the Residential High Density (RH) standards Increased privacy o Eliminated roof decks and rear patios on the 2-story units (Plan 1) o Placed primary orientation of the project onto the central courtyard o Minimized windows facing adjacent properties At the second workshop, six members of the public spoke. One person spoke about current property maintenance and five people had concerns. A summary of the concerns included: Loss of sunrise view Loss of direct sunlight Composition of the shadow study View concerns Request for flat roofs Verifying building heights Request to comply with RH building height standards for maximum height of 25 After considering the public s testimony and review of the plans, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to: 1) Work with staff to prepare the project for public hearing 2) Provide additional information on the current design and consideration of alternatives Analysis: The applicant has submitted final plans for the project (Attachment D). There are no substantial changes to the plans compared to those reviewed at the last workshop. Minor changes that were made include: Increasing the rear setback by 1 by shifting the west end units, for a 6 rear (west) setback and a 25-6 front (east) setback; Narrowing of the drive aisle to 20 to increase interior courtyard landscaping; and Positioning the entry gate.

7 Page 7 The applicant maintains that they have made sufficient modifications in response to comments generated at their initial outreach meetings and workshops at Commission meetings. They have prepared a summary of the changes that have been made since the start of the project (Attachment E). The site plan consists of 10 townhome-style condominiums in a u-shaped configuration around the 20 wide private driveway down the middle of the courtyard. Up to 12 units are permitted under current zoning regulations. The applicant designed the project as five separate buildings (rather than one large building with multiple attached units). Each unit in the five buildings has a shared wall on the 1 st floor, but the 2 nd and 3 rd floors are separated to create a corridor for views, light and air. There are two plan types within the development: Plan 1 1,732 square feet (units in the two northern buildings) o 1 st floor: master bedroom and bathroom, 3 rd bedroom/optional den and bathroom, and 2-car garage o 2 nd floor: kitchen, living room, laundry, balcony, bedroom and bathroom and 132-square-foot covered balcony Plan 2 2,015 square feet (units in the two southern and one west end buildings) o 1 st floor: bedroom, bathroom, patio, 2-car garage with storage area o 2 nd floor: kitchen, dining room, living room, half bathroom, 122-square-foot covered balcony o 3 rd floor: 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and laundry room For purposes of the discussion in the staff report the units are referred to as the northern, southern and west end units. NORTHERN UNITS WEST END UNITS SOUTHERN UNITS

8 Page 8 Response to Commission Request for Additional Information The applicant provided additional information in response to Commission and public comments at the last workshop (Attachments F and G). Staff has summarized the information by subject: Building Heights of the southern units (Attachment F) o Maximum Top of Roof elevation to be 149. o Plan 2 was reduced 3 in building height and grade reduced 1 for a total reduction of 4 Shadow Study for the west end units (Attachment G) o The model was prepared using SketchUp software. The two most extreme days of the solar calendar were evaluated (summer and winter solstice). The shadow of the proposed project (32-6 high with 7 setback) was compared to a project that could be built under the RH standards (25 in height, 10 rear and 5 side setback). o The applicant has indicated that the proposed project would cast an additional 5 minutes of shadow during the winter and an additional 25 minutes of shadow in the summer on the Hillbrook Condominiums. Response to Commission Request for Consideration of Alternatives The applicant has also analyzed alternatives that they considered for the site and floor plans (Attachment H). Staff has summarized the applicant s analysis below: Alternatives to Reduce Building Heights Alternative #1: Replace Plan 2 (3-story) homes with Plan 1 (2-story) homes for west end units o Plan 1 (36 x 71 ) is wider and deeper than Plan 2 (33 x 68 ) which would result in: o Reduction of the rear setback or elimination of the landscaping in front of the homes o Increase in massing o Reduction of open space and increase in lot coverage o Wider shadow cast from the building Additional grading to reduce the overall height of the property o Increased cost to the developer Consideration of flat roofs o Economically infeasible to the developer Alternative Designs Alternative #2: Eliminate setback deviation by expanding rear yard from 6 to 10 o Landscaping in front of the west end homes would be removed Alternative #3: Develop a different product type o Increased costs/economically infeasible to the developer

9 Page 9 Consider alternative designs for existing floor plans and elevations o Economically infeasible to the developer Staff Analysis of Alternatives The alternatives that were studied by the applicant would have changed the building height, site plan design, floor plans and/or elevations. The applicant did not make any changes to the building heights, floor plans or elevations as they found the alternatives inferior to the current plans. Of the six alternatives studied the applicant deemed four of them as economically infeasible. It is important to note that, shadow studies are not required as information for Site Plan and Design Review and shadow studies are not listed as a criteria used by the Planning Commission in reviewing any for Site Plan and Design Review application. Modifications to the building heights or locations are subject to the Planning Commission s criteria for Site Plan and Design Review. The Planning Commission may request changes to the site plan, by adding the changes as conditions of approval. If the applicant revised the plans to be consistent with the rear (west) setback for the RH zoning district, the landscaping in front of the west end units would be eliminated, but the need for a deviation from the RH development standards would also be eliminated. If the applicant switched the west units from Plan 2 (3-story) to Plan 1 (2-story) the building would only be 24 6 in height, but the massing would be increased, setbacks reduced or landscaping in front of the west end units would be eliminated, and a wider shadow would be cast. Public Comments To date, staff has received six comments regarding the final plans for the project. The comments for the Planning Commission s consideration are attached (Attachment I-N). Staff has summarized the residents comments in bullet points: Hillbrook Condominiums: 1) 1903 Temple Avenue, Unit Dameon Booker o Reduced property values o Adequacy of the shadow study and o Quality of life and negative health impacts of limited sunlight 2) 1903 Temple Avenue, Unit David Fukumoto o Opposes to deviation in rear setback and building over 25 o Impacts from loss of sunlight o Only side with 32 building heights Temple View Condominiums: 3) 1957 Temple Avenue, Unit Patrick Faecke o View Impacts o Lowering the grade of the building further, lowering the ceiling heights of the building stories less than current 8 ½-9 feet, or flat roofs.

10 Page 10 4) 1957 Temple Avenue, Unit Miruna Babatie o View Impacts o Opposes building over 25 5) 1957 Temple Avenue, Unit Jay Kobielusz o Opposes the Zoning Ordinance Amendment o Opposes building over 25, 6 building separation and 8' front setback 6) 1957 Temple Avenue, Unit Alin Chitanu on behalf of Temple View Condominiums o Eliminate the peak roofs which exceed the Hillbrook horizon line o Design the project with flat roofs Zoning Ordinance Amendment New Specific Plan There are 13 residential specific plans in the City. Specific plans create standards that are specific to the development and are approved in recognition of site constraints. The subject site is constrained in the size and contains abandoned oil wells. The lot is narrow and deep which limits functional and aesthetically pleasing design options. In addition, the site plan was designed to allow a large service to access the wells if need which required the southern units to be setback further from Temple Avenue and the distance between the two buildings to be reduced. As proposed, the project requires a Zoning Ordinance Amendment changing the zoning designation of the property from the current RH, Residential High density designation and creating a new Specific Plan designation as well as new development standards to permit deviations from the current RH standards. The adoption of SP-21, Courtyard Residential Specific Plan requires both Planning Commission and City Council review. The specific plan would permit: Six 3-story dwellings, 32 in height (2.5-story, 25 maximum in the RH zone) 12 front setback (20 minimum in the RH zone) 6 rear (10 minimum in the RH zone) 6 separation between buildings (10 minimum in the RH zone) 13% open space (25% minimum per RH zone) Site Plan and Design Review The projects features a Santa Barbara-style influence in the architecture treatment. As proposed, all of the plans and units are the same colors and materials. A condition of approval has been added require use of various finishes and fixtures to ensure there is a moderate degree of variation between the units or plan types. In addition, conditions of approval have been added to enhance the two elevations that are visible from Temple Avenue with architectural elements and to specify enhanced paving treatments for the private driveway. As with all approvals, any substantial modification to the plan as determined by the Community Development Director shall be subject to approval of the Planning Commission after proper notice to surrounding property owners.

11 Page 11 Landscape and Fence and Wall Plan The conceptual landscape plan has been designed with water efficient shrubs and ground cover. Currently, the plans show common garden plots at the front of the property that would be visible from the public right-of-way. Staff has recommended that the plots be removed or relocated to the rear of the development and replaced with a community amenity or large trees. The City s Landscape Architect has reviewed the conceptual landscape plan and recommended changes based proximity to garages and size of the planter areas. Condition of approvals have been added to ensure the final landscape plan has appropriate vertical or accent shrubs, the Brisbane Box trees would be replaced with Hollywood Juniper and the remaining trees shall be upsized (more than 24 box) since some trees will be removed. The fence and wall plan provided, does not provide detailed information about the fence heights and locations. A condition of approval has been added to require a fence and wall plan including materials, heights and locations (interior and perimeter). In addition, the vehicle gate shall be setback 20 from the front property line to provide adequate vehicle queuing on-site and not within the public right-of-way. Grading The grading plan calls for minor grading, so the finished grades will be very similar to the existing grades. Tentative Tract Map A Tentative Tract map has been prepared to subdivide the.6-acre site into 10 lots for condominiums, private yards, common area and a private driveway. The Tentative Tract Map has been transmitted to the appropriate agencies for their review and conditions of approval have been added based on the comments received. Environmental Review Mitigated Negative Declaration 05/06/16(1) An Initial Study was prepared for the Site Plan and Design Review, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Tentative Tract and found potentially significant environmental impacts unless mitigated. Mitigation measures have been included to address noise and hazards. The City Council will be the approving authority of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Approved by: Scott Charney Attachments